The Future of Film Photography

Status
Not open for further replies.
the futurre of film is related to two important point: production of film and development and printing of it when exposed. Production is related to figures: if enough film are produced it is worthwhile to keep plant and machinary active, but below a certain figure the cost will increase so much that even increasin selling price it will be not profitable. IMO to have an high number of film sold it is rerlated not to "special" amateur as many of us are here but to the mass consumption (the thousand of photographer that each day were taking snaps in S.Marco Square in Venice, Italy as example) which today are all taking digital snaps. And they are push to go in this direction by agressive marketing (camera and computer producers) and by the continuous decreasing of the lab which can develop film. But labs printing from files in few minutes are increasing.
In this view (if correct) the future is at least uncertain. Unless in 5 or 10 years many of these tourist user will notice that the files of their journey to Venice are not more reproducible, the cd's on which they were cannot be read by the new operating systems etc etc ( I know that professional or high end user know how to properly store, duplicate or update etc, but high figures come from the mass market) and this could be a force driving again toward film, if not too late.
Just my point of view, which of course could be wrong.
robert
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
shootodog, why not shoot film while it's around? See, you are trying to make it film versus digital again. As most folks these days, I shoot far more digital than film, but I have no animosity toward film and own a lot of film gear.
Click to expand...

how can i make it a film vs digital argument when i never mentioned anything about digital nor film?

i'm asking you why YOU do if the belief is that we are using a dead format.

i use film because i believe it will still be a viable medium for many years to come.
 
shootodog, I used 8-track tapes in my car with the certain knowledge (and desperate hope) that something better would come along. I don't understand your logic. What difference does the future availability of film make to using it now?
 
Yes, advances in film and paper are still perfectly technically feasible, and indeed we still see them from time to time (well, mostly in film), though I imagine they will become less and less frequent. The biggest threat to paper production isn't coating, which is actually quite easy compared with film. It's the availability of paper base. And even that is surmountable.

Yes, there are still professionals who shoot film whenever possible. Kodak gathered several of them for a lecture at photokina 2008.

Advances in film cameras? Probably not. It's hard to see what useful advances could be made, and I doubt there are many great minds addressing the problem and waiting to astonish us. Advances in lenses? Without question.

My personal belief, based on quite a good knowledge of the photo trade and personal acquaintance with a good few of the principals, is that film has plenty of time yet. Of course I may only be believing what I want to believe, but equally, if the naysayers went to photokina instead of believing what they read on the internet, then some of them might change their minds.

Others wouldn't, of course, because they seem to want film to disappear. But then, there are plenty who seem to want Leica to fail too. It's almost as if their essential world-picture depends on others' failure.

On the future of anything, I am more and more inclined to bear in mind quote one of HH Dalai Lama's lesser-known quotes, "Well, I think we'll just wait and see."

Cheers,

R.
 
YUP! All the 30,40,50.&60 y.o. Stuff we glean from E-bay and Goodwill , we'll just have to toss! But rejoice. Most of the high end stuff that was too costly to repair will still be around as plastic does last a long long time. Just think... no brassing any more. Those rare earth elements that are so hard to find today, well they will just have to find some more.
 
Pickett,

Film vs digital is incredibly important as it affects the 'simple economics.' People shooting film creates the economics and therefore while people have a preference for film, there will be some demand. Whether there is enough is another matter.
 
Unlike those who can predict the future with amazing clarity and absolute certainty, I really don't have the slightest idea what the future of film is. I only shoot film and so, dearly and sincerely hope that E-6 emulsions continue to be produced, and are available to me at reasonable cost, along with reasonablely priced development.
Having said that, all I can say about the future of film is that first we'll see, and then we'll know.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think we will see a new black and white film in less than a year... It's not what I expect, as I'm so very satisfied with the films we have today... It's what I really believe, after seeing Kodak's race in leading the B&W film business in these past 2-3 years... I guess Fuji (a company that sells a lot of film too) won't leave the game easily. Apart, Ilford declared recently they won't cut their line at all... Show goes on, it seems... Yes, we'll wait and see... I mean, sit down and enjoy, as best films ever were born in 2007 and 2009 (TMY2 and Ektar)

Cheers,

Juan
 
Pickett Wilson said:
The future of film has nothing to do with whether it's better than digital. Or whether digital is more convenient. Irrelevant. It has to do with simple economics. The economics of making film, the economics of using it, and the economics of making new film cameras.
Click to expand...

That is the point where you inevitably go wrong... ;-)

Not even professionals do care that much about economics, or we'd see a magnitude less sales in pro cameras - if my accountant was in charge of buying my professionally used cameras, I'd have owned hardly more than half a dozen throughout a 25 year career, while I've been through considerably above fifty and own more than ten.

The same goes even more so for amateurs - who essentially never need anything more than their first fully functioning camera, and probably won't wear that down in a lifetime, but tend to have a small format camera budget not that far off professionals. And artists? They even tend to make a sport of being intentionally un-economic.

Sevo
 
Forget film: I think the future of professional photography is dead.

With the expense of film/processing there was a certain exclusivity to learning photography. But now any old chump can do it. In time, rather like dancing in the old days: every other person will be able to "take a cood picture". The only people left will be news paper lensmen. Everyone else will just use their uncle.
 
Journeyman said:
What exactly are the "advantages of digital"?

Is it that amazing dynamic range or the beautifully flat tone curve or reliance on mains power? Or is it that all-important ability to chimp?
Click to expand...

It is whatever motivates someone to use a digital camera. The obverse is true, too: The advantage of film is whatever motivates someone to use a film camera.

This discussion usually revolves around the capabilities of film versus the capabilities of digital sensors. I think that's a very narrow focus. We should be looking at the attributes of the cameras themselves if we want to account for their popularity, or lack thereof.

If we set aside the question of the medium that actually records the image, the market has clearly told us that people want highly automated cameras. For several reasons, film cameras that provide that level of automation are rather scarce, even on the used market.

If someone is motivated to buy a non-P&S film camera, they are almost certainly also buying into manual focus, manual aperture setting, manual ISO adjustment, etc., etc. Contrary to preferences around here, most folks will be put off by that prospect. The "mains power" angle is a non-issue. If the power goes off, we all have other things to worry about.

Issues of dynamic range, tone curve, etc., are invisible to the people who drive the camera market. Even if a given brand of film, in a given film camera, might be shown to deliver better dynamic range or better tone, that's a comparison that the overwhelming number of people who buy cameras have no reason to make, much less understand.

People like digital camera because they are automated and because you do not have to wait and/or pay someone to develop the film.

If someone made a digital camera that had no automation and required that the sensor be removed and taken to a shop or mailed away before you could see the pictures, how many would actually sell?

Convenience, speed, and ease of use trumps everything else.
 
wgerrard said:
Issues of dynamic range, tone curve, etc., are invisible to the people who drive the camera market. Even if a given brand of film, in a given film camera, might be shown to deliver better dynamic range or better tone, that's a comparison that the overwhelming number of people who buy cameras have no reason to make, much less understand.
Click to expand...

Agreed, otherwise the Fuji S5 camera would've sold more .
 
- Film will live on as far as the eye can see in larger formats - medium format, large format. Medium format digital backs are pricey and will remain that way. Large format is right out for digital. Digital has already replaced 35mm (and smaller) color print film. It's all over but the shouting there. All that remains of that market are older folks who don't do "the PC thing" and are disinterested in buying and learning new technologies, like my 83 year old dad who shoots the same Canon QLIII rangefinder (the earlier big one) since we were kids. And - of course, hobbyists. Film will live on /probably/ in black and white as far as the eye can see in the student and hobbyist markets - for those who want to learn the craft of self-processing black and white. Wet printing, however, is a bigger threat. Paper manufacturers are disappearing. They may very well go, and all that remains will be to scan in negatives. If that happens it may well effect those who still develop black and white film but only wet print. They, at that point, might pack it in and used Photoshopped digitals for black and white.
 
These discussions always leave me feeling a little depressed. I shoot film because I love using the cameras. There's just something special about picking up a 1932 Leica III and getting fantastic images out of it. I'm sure many of us on this forum feel the same way.

It breaks my heart every time another film is lost or I see the price has been raised on another. Fuji 400H was $3.75 a roll at Adorama just a few weeks ago. Now it's $5.75 a roll.

What's heartening is everytime I get outbid on a Rollei. I figure if someone still wants to spend $1,000 on a supposedly obsolete camera, film will be OK. We'll see...

Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom